Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
In a commencement address to the U.S. Naval Academy, Vice President JD Vance articulated a novel approach to American foreign policy, endeavoring to distinguish the Trump era from preceding presidential administrations. He asserted that the United States now operates primarily in its national interests, eschewing open-ended engagements. He stated, During President Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates,” most of the headlines focused on the trillions of dollars of new investment the president secured for our country;” however, “the most significant part of that trip is that it signified the end of a decades-long approach in foreign policy.”
He further elaborated that this policy represented a ‘break’ from the principles of the nation’s founding fathers. For years, the US pursued a course wherein national defense and alliance preservation were subsumed by ‘nation-building and meddling’ in the domestic affairs of countries with limited relevance to core American interests. He emphasized that the US faces substantial threats from China, Russia, and other nations, necessitating the maintenance of its technological superiority. Vance also remarked on the inherent difficulty and exorbitant cost of building “a few democracies in the Middle East,” citing the Houthi situation as an example where targeted military action resulted in a short-term ceasefire and the cessation of attacks on US vessels. Given that the new administration’s approach is primarily reflected in the statements of Vance and President Trump, these pronouncements warrant careful consideration.
In addition to these statements, recent actions by US officials, particularly in the Middle East and concerning Israel, suggest a potential shift wherein Israel no longer occupies the paramount position in US Middle East policy. Specifically, the Trump administration appears to be moving away from viewing the region solely through the lens of Israeli interests. While maintaining a commitment to Israel’s security as a strategic ally, the administration is pursuing a divergent approach regarding strategic economic interests. Some analysts attribute this to President Trump’s dissatisfaction with Benjamin Netanyahu, attributing the discord to their differing personalities. Others maintain that the disagreements are not substantial and that both nations share fundamental strategic interests in the region, operating within a division of labor. However, President Trump’s repeated circumvention of Netanyahu in regional matters, such as negotiations with Iran, the handling of Syria with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, direct talks with Hamas, and the agreement with the Houthis in Yemen, suggests a divergence far exceeding personal differences. In many cases, Netanyahu’s views appear to have been disregarded.
For instance, the agreement with the Houthis did not mandate a cessation of attacks on Israeli targets. Similarly, in direct negotiations with Hamas, the US committed to delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza in exchange for the release of a dual U.S.-Israeli national. These actions, reportedly met with strong Israeli opposition, lend credence to the hypothesis of a weakening in the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship. President Trump’s recent trip to the Gulf region and the strategic arms deal with Saudi Arabia, previously contingent on Saudi-Israeli normalization, further indicate a prioritization of US national interests over those of Israel. Despite public assertions of shared perspectives and close personal ties between US and Israeli leaders, the US appears to have relegated Israel to its Middle East diplomatic priorities. This shift suggests a divergence in approaches and solutions, with President Trump demonstrating his independence from Israeli influence, prioritizing US interests, and asserting his personal negotiation prowess. These actions have raised concerns for Netanyahu, who has responded with a confrontational approach, escalating settlement construction in the West Bank, intensifying attacks on Gaza, and taking action against Lebanon, Syria, and the Houthis, while threatening Iran. This strategy aims to assert his control over regional dynamics.
It remains unclear to what extent the pro-Israel lobby in the US supports Netanyahu’s confrontational regional policies. However, messages sent to President Trump by a former FBI director, coded as ‘8,647’ (interpreted as the removal of the 47th president), suggest that Trump’s independent approach is not universally tolerated. Notably, even right-wing Jewish members of the Trump administration have criticized Netanyahu’s policies.
Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, expressed disagreement with Israel’s approach to the Gaza conflict, arguing that Israel is prolonging the war for its own interests, while a ceasefire and hostage release would be more constructive. Families of Israeli hostages reported that they had not previously heard such criticism from Witkoff. It appears that agreements with Gulf Arab states and other Arab nations, such as Syria and Lebanon, are higher priorities for the Trump administration. The continued leadership of Netanyahu is seen to have delayed the achievement of the Abraham Accords. Therefore, Saudi-Israeli normalization is currently deemed impractical. Although existing data presents obstacles, President Trump may be pursuing a regional realignment without Israel, engaging with other Middle Eastern actors, including Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon, and potentially facilitating Saudi and broader Arab normalization with Iran.
Netanyahu appears to be positioned in opposition to the Trump administration’s regional policies. Trump had previously conditioned defensive and security guarantees to Riyadh on Israeli acceptance, a core objective of the Abraham Accords. However, he has recently downplayed this, expressing hope that Saudi Arabia will eventually sign the accords while acknowledging the current impracticability. Notably, he did not mention Israel in these statements. Trump aims to consolidate US geostrategic and geoeconomic influence by engaging Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, as well as diminishing Chinese influence. However, it is unlikely he can fully decouple Arab states from economic, energy, investment, trade, logistics, AI, and technology ties with China. He understands China will not cross the US red lines in security and defense matters.
Firas Modad asserts that the US will take necessary measures to prevent energy-rich and militarily powerful Islamic nations from aligning with China, even at Israel’s expense. President Trump is aware of the powerful pro-Israel lobby’s influence on US domestic and foreign policy. Recent removals of personnel from sensitive military and security positions, including over one hundred staff members from the National Security Council (NSC), may be part of a strategy to eliminate opposition to the ‘MAGA’ agenda.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s new approach and Israel’s hardline policies have created a complex situation. While a complete breakdown of the U.S.-Israel alliance is unlikely, a redefinition appears probable. Although Israel may no longer be the sole cornerstone of US regional policy, this situation presents opportunities for Iran to enhance its bargaining power in indirect negotiations with the US and foster broader regional cooperation.
